ORTIGAS & COMPANY, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, petitioner,

vs.
HON. VIVENCIO M. RUIZ, in his capacity as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal
This is a petition for certiorari and Prohibition With Preliminary Injunction seeking to annul the Order
of respondent Court dated August 13, 1971 and to prohibit respondent Court from proceeding in any
manner with Civil Case No. 678-M (15043) for alleged lack of jurisdisction.The facts of the case are
as follows:
Petitioner is the duly registered owner of several adjacent parcels of land situated in Rizal, Said
parcel is a portion of the Mandaluyong Estate over which Petitioner, thru its predecessor-in-interest,
has been in continuous possession since 1862 or 125 years ago, Sometime in 1967, Civil Case No.
(10339) was filed against petitioner by a certain Pedro del Rosario and three others, in their own
behalf and in behalf of 104 others, as a class suit, in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, seeking,
among other things, the declaration of petitioner's titles null and void, allegedly for lack of publication
in the land registration proceeding from which they were derived and for alleged fraud employed in
registering under Act No. 496 certain parcels of agricultural land in Quezon City and Pasig, Rizal
(Rollo, p. 63) which form part of the Mandaloyon Estate (Rollo, p. 9) and the declaration of plaintiffs
thereon as lawful owners and possessors of their respective landholdings. In this case, respondent
Court issued a restraining order ex-parte, still in force and effect when the instant petition was filed.
Civil Case No. 678-M (15043) was filed by Inocencio Bernardo and five others for and in their own
behalf and in behalf of 37 others against petitioner, filed as a class suit concerning another portion of
the Mandaloyon Estate,. The complaint is generally identical to that of Civil Case No. 7-M
(10339).An urgent ex-parte motion of private respondents (plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 678-M
[15043]), opposing among others, petitioner's construction of fences and high walls, roads, streets
and canals on the land in dispute, having been filed (Rollo, p. 60), respondent Court issued the
afore-quoted questioned Order issuing a restraining order..
Hence, this petition.
petitioner filed with the lower court an omnibus motion praying for the Court to order the dropping of
persons as plaintiffs, except Inocencio Bernardo for improper class suit pursuant to Section 11, Rule
3 of the Rules of Court..
The only issue in this petition is:
WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT COURT ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION IN ISSUING ITS ORDER(Restraining Order). .
The petition is impressed with merit.

Petitioner argues further, that a class suit is not proper in this case as such presupposes a common
and general interest by several plaintiffs in a single specific thing (Section 12, Rule 3, Rules of
Court). Consequently, it cannot be maintained when each of those impleaded as alleged plaintiffs
"has only a special or particular interest in the specific thing completely different from another thing
in which the defendants have a like interest." (Berces v. Villanueva, 25 Phil. 473). (Rollo, p. 24).
Petitioner's contention is meritorious.
It is not a case where one or more may sue for the benefit of all (Mathay v. Consolidated Bank and
Trust Company, 58 SCRA 559) or where the representation of class interest affected by the
judgment or decree is indispensable to make each member of the class an actual party (Borlaza v.
Polistico, 47 Phil. 348; Newsweek, Inc. v. The Intermediate Appellate Court, et al., G.R. No. 63559,
promulgated May 30, 1986).
In the case at bar, a class suit would not lie because each of the defendants has an interest
only in the particular portion of the land he is actually occupying, and not in the portions
individually occupied by the other defendants. (Berces v. Villanueva, supra; Rallonza v. Evangelista,
15 Phil. 531). They do not have a common or general interest in the subject matter of the
controversy (Newsweek, Inc. v. The Intermediate Appellate Court, et al.,supra).
Hence, there is merit in petitioner's contention that only the principal plaintiff named in the complaint
Inocencio Bernardo can remain as party plaintiff, and all the rest must be dropped from the case,
pursuant to Section 11, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. And since Bernardo does not pretend to own
almost two million square meters involved in the case, the restraining order of respondent Judge
granting that it could be maintained must be co-extensive with the boundaries of Bernardo's claim.
Otherwise stated, respondent Judge cannot restrain petitioner from performing acts of ownership or
dominion over the entire 200 hectares involved in this case.
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the restraining order issued by the lower court is hereby SET ASIDE;